Abdominoperineal resection revisited: is positioning an important issue?

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for advanced low rectal cancer: Where to go

Since its introduction, extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) in the prone position has gained significant attention and recognition as an important surgical procedure for the treatment of advanced low rectal cancer. Most studies suggest that because of adequate resection and precise anatomy, ELAPE could decrease the rate of positive circumferential resection margins, intraoperative perforation, and may further decrease local recurrence rate and improve survival. Some studies show that extensive resection of pelvic floor tissue may increase the incidence of wound complications and urogenital dysfunction. Laparoscopic/robotic ELAPE and trans-perineal minimally invasive approach allow patients to be operated in the lithotomy position, which has advantages of excellent operative view, precise dissection and reduced postoperative complications. Pelvic floor reconstruction with biological mesh could significantly reduce wound complications and the duration of hospitalization. The proposal of individualized ELAPE could further reduce the occurrence of postoperative urogenital dysfunction and chronic perianal pain. The ELAPE procedure emphasizes precise anatomy and conforms to the principle of radical resection of tumors, which is a milestone operation for the treatment of advanced low rectal cancer.

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision versus conventional surgery for low rectal cancer: a single surgeon experience

OBJECTIVE

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) reduces the risk of positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) and of intraoperative perforation (IOP), both of which are associated with high local recurrence rates and poor survival outcomes for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the results of ELAPE with conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE) for low rectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 25 consecutive patients underwent ELAPE for low rectal cancer between November 2008 and September 2011. Fifty-six patients treated by conventional APE prior to 2008 were selected from our rectal cancer database for comparison as a historical cohort.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 44.7 months in the ELAPE group, and 70.6 months in the APE group. Patients undergoing ELAPE had a lower CRM positivity and IOP rate than APE (12% vs. 20%, p=0,531; 4% vs. 8,9%, p=0,826; respectively). The ELAPE group was associated with higher perineal wound complications than the APE group (16.0% vs. 1.8%, p=0.030). Local recurrence rates for patients in both groups did not differ significantly (4.0% vs. 3.6%, p=1.0).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that ELAPE technique was associated with less CRM involvement and reduced rates of IOP but markedly higher rates of postoperative perineal complications occurred as compared to conventional surgery. ELAPE must be reserved for advanced low rectal cancers.

Results of extralevator abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer including quality of life and long-term wound complications

PURPOSE

Extralevator abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low rectal cancer has been adopted by centers to improve oncological outcome. The present study aimed to investigate oncological results, wound complications, and quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

Patients who underwent extralevator APR for rectal cancer between 2007 and 2011 were identified retrospectively. QoL status was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-CR30 and CR29 questionnaires.

RESULTS

Thirty laparoscopic (n = 7) or open (n = 23) extralevator APRs were performed in 17 male and 13 female patients. The mortality was zero; circumferential margin involvement occurred in two cases (6.7 %); and there was no bowel perforation. No local recurrence was noted after a median follow-up of 28.3 months; however, six patients died, and eight developed distant metastases. Perineal wound complications were found in 46.6 % of patients, and all were managed conservatively. Fifty percent of the patients reported persistent perineal pain at the follow-up exam. QoL was assessed 7 to 46 months after surgery, and the global health status (70.6) was comparable to the EORTC reference group and published conventional APR series. The QLQ-CR29 module revealed high mean symptom scores for urinary frequency (48.1), incontinence (30.5), and impotence (79.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Extralevator APR can control local recurrence but not distant metastases of low rectal cancer. The extended perineal resection appears not to decrease general QoL, but it results in a high rate of perineal wound complications. Genitourinary functions are often impaired, even in the long term, and further improvements to the technique must seek to reduce genitourinary harm.